Since the publication of my book, World War Trump (Prometheus Books, 2018), I have argued that the US should engage in far-reaching democratic reforms to prevent Trump-or anyone else, for that matter-from implementing a dictatorship.

A single-term six-year US presidency—combined with other far-reaching democratic reforms―would result in a new relationship between the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the American people, and the world at large.

Revising the US presidential term

The US president should be limited to a single six-year term in office. The 22nd amendment should be amended, but in such a way as to grant the president a longer stay in office, 6 years instead of 4, to get things done—but without a chance of re-election, much as both Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter had proposed but did not implement.

After 6 years, it should be time to give another leader a chance. In such a way, no future president—whether Democrat, Republican, or from a third party—would waste the precious time and resources of the presidency on his/her personal re-election campaign for a second term.

Moreover, steps toward a single-term presidency could also open the door to new candidates for president, as it would open the door to more choices for leadership. It would be understood that the vice president is not the only person who could represent a political party for the next presidency.

By contrast, the longer a single leader stays in power, the easier it will prove for him/her to cover up major policy errors and corruption. It is far better that the government change hands as often as possible, while also seeking ways to cooperate with rival factions and sociopolitical movements, than to let powerful individuals use state and social resources to delude the people with bright 4th of July fireworks that progress is being made and to repress dissent.

Checking Trump’s calls for a presidential third term

The scenario of a third-term Trump administration cannot be ruled out—if Trump can find a way to get around the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. Newsweek and other magazines have run opinion pieces and articles dealing with that possibility.

Trump has once again stated that he would not rule out another term in office, given his claims that many people are urging him to run for president again, even if he also says that it is not time to talk about it. Nevertheless, the Trump Organization has already begun to sell red caps with Trump 2028 written in bold white letters!

And Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would permit Trump to run for another term in the White House by revising the 22nd Amendment.

Distraction from other, more democratic alternatives

Whether intended or not, Trump’s discussion of a third term tends to distract the public from a more viable alternative: a single six-year presidential term as advocated by former President Jimmy Carter.

In essence, Carter argued that running for a second term immediately raises questions as to whether the president is seeking to implement policies that benefit his personal election campaign or whether he intends to implement policies that will truly benefit the American people. Carter had argued for a one-term 6-year presidency “on the grounds that no matter what he did, people would question whether it was a selfish “campaign ploy” or “genuinely done in the best interest of our country.”

As it takes roughly 1 1/2 to 2 years or so to learn how to run the US government, a single six-year term in office would give the president enough time to implement policies that would hopefully better serve the interests of the American people, but then let a new leadership take the reins after 6 years. This approach could open the door to new political parties.

Moreover, the very act of running for a second term means that the president must devote time and attention to his reelection and not to the vital affairs of the country that could impact millions of lives. And just because a leader appears to be “successful” in the public eye in the first term does not mean he/she will necessarily be “successful” in their second or third terms.

Don’t fall into Trump’s trap

As the issue of permitting Trump to run for a third term is presently being debated, Democrats should not fall into the Trumpist trap and support revising the 22nd Amendment in favor of accepting the legality of presidential third terms in the hope, for example, that Obama could run again and then defeat Trump.

Such an approach will only further divide and polarize the American people and set the stage for a new autocracy. There is no guarantee that Trump or Obama will prove to be better in a third term than someone else!

Another “legal” way to change the 22nd Amendment would be to play an American version of the Vladimir Putin-Dmitri Medvedev election game in Russia. Putin ran as Medvedev’s prime minister and then changed the Russian Constitution to let him run again as Russian president. Somewhat similarly, Trump could run as Vance’s Vice President (VP) and either run the country from the VP’s office, as did Dick Cheney, or else demand Vance step down so Trump could become president.

That, of course, makes a big assumption that Vance or another candidate could win with Trump as the VP!

The dangers of dictatorship

Whether or not Trump can change the 22nd Amendment constitutionally, he has already begun to whittle away many legal checks and balances. Trump has already begun to set the stage for a future autocracy.

The argument that the US courts will prove as strong as they did during the Roosevelt era, when FDR was elected for four terms (but died in his fourth term near the end of World War II), appears to ignore the reality of recent Supreme Court rulings. In response to Trump’s January 6th, 2001, Capitol Hill insurrection, the Supreme Court ruled that while a president does not have full immunity, he does possess immunity “for actions that are closely related to his core duties as president.”

This opens a fuzzy line toward a potential American, as it is not at all clear how one can define acts that are “official” and those that are “unofficial.” And any president can use roughly 137 statutory powers to enhance his powers when he declares a national emergency, for whatever reason.

As the world enters into a new nuclear, conventional, and unconventional arms race and a conflictual era of absurd economic protectionism, a US war with Iran or China―or an escalation of the ongoing proxy war in support of Ukrainegainst Russia—would make it easier for Trump to seize power and crack down on dissent.

Countering the rise of the new plutocracy

Not only is the US risking dictatorship, but the nature of the US political economy, combined with 2010 campaign financing rules, has set the stage for a new plutocracy.

The 2010 5-4 Supreme Court decision to back “Citizens United” has augmented the influence of wealthy donors and corporations to create super PACs and shadowy nonprofits that back candidates for office who do not disclose the special interests of their dark money donors—thereby setting the stage for anti-democratic plutocratic rule.

“Citizens United” needs to be overturned. Campaign financing rules need far-reaching reforms and should be replaced by a system of public financing with donations limited per person. The US needs laws that clearly establish that corporations cannot be considered as individuals.

Reforming campaign finance would reduce the influence of major corporations and the military-industrial complex on the selection of political candidates and the laws that they pass. Democrats, Republicans, third parties, and independents would all benefit from this fundamental reform.

Moreover, augmenting the role of employees and unions in the decision-making boards of major corporations, while spreading wealth through employee stock ownership and taxation of “excessive” incomes, would likewise help reduce extreme inequities of wealth in the United States.

Reduce bureaucratic waste with democratic oversight

The US government definitely needs serious, far-reaching reforms in the effort to cut costs and excessive spending, but these reforms must strengthen, not weaken, democratic practices.

What is needed is real democratic congressional oversight, not forceful, indiscriminate executive actions to “drain the swamp,” as has been implemented by Trump’s unelected and AI-assisted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) billionaire advisor, Elon Musk.

Such methods are weakening both Congress and the courts while augmenting the lobbying power of big corporations and the military-industrial complex, alongside the rise of a new “imperial presidency."

The need to pursue additional democratic Alternatives

A new approach to the presidency and to democratic governance could additionally open the door for deeper structural reforms of the Supreme Court and the effort to bring the US government closer to the American people.

In addition to a six-year single-term presidency, what is also needed is a stronger, more independent Congress that can stand up to both presidential power and to the military-industrial complex, as well as to Silicon Valley, plus financial, pharmaceutical, big media, and energy corporations. Such reforms should help to ameliorate the problems caused by what Francis Fukuyama has called “vetocracy”—but that, in reality, does very little to veto the demands of the military-industrial complex and big business!

One option to limit elements of “vetocracy” that slow decisions that impact health and human services, among other issues, is to collapse the bicameral House and Senate into a single unicameral body whose members would have terms limited to 6 to 12 years. This would eliminate the “conference committee,” or the so-called “third house of Congress,” and the need to “iron out the differences” between the House and Senate. This reform would help reduce official corruption and help remove extra checks and balances that play into the hands of the executive branch and weaken the power of Congress.

Reducing Supreme Court office terms to 12 to 18 years instead of life terms (whether or not one adds to the number of Supreme Court justices) would provide a greater variety of perspectives, as picked by different individuals, while making sure all Court members are healthy and of sound minds!

Democracy and war

Although the domestic structure of governance does not necessarily prevent violent disputes, conflict, and war, deeper democratic reforms could help strengthen peace-oriented diplomacy―but only if the use of force by the executive branch is not only limited by effective congressional oversight but also by the use of effective diplomacy and power-based strategic leveraging and bargaining.

As the insecurity-security dialectic clarifies, war is not only the result of failed dialogue with rival states and anti-state movements within an unstable global system, but war, imperialism, and proxy wars can also be generated by leaderships that seek to perpetuate their power and influence for as long as possible by the threat and use of force―in opposition to domestic factions and political parties that advocate alternative policies and that hold other interests, such as global and domestic peace, human development, education, freedom of speech and criticism, health and welfare, equity and power-sharing, meaningful jobs, and environmental protection, in priority.

Not a Panacea, but a first step

The US system of governance possesses many flaws and contradictions. The above represent just a few proposed reforms that need to be further debated and refined, in the effort to bring US governance closer to the general needs and interests of the American people. The task would be difficult but not impossible, and can be achieved in one of four ways, as outlined in the US Constitution.

Reducing the presidential term to a single 6-year period will not be a panacea; more reforms will prove necessary, but it can represent a first step. Without far-reaching democratic reforms that bring the federal government and major US corporations closer to Congress and the American people―by way of reducing socio-economic inequities and implementing policies aimed at sustainable development and the end of war as a tool of statecraftft where possible—the US will face the real possibility of a dictatorship in the not-so-distant future—whether it be Trump or another authoritarian following in Trump’s footsteps.

Praise for World War Trump

This is what the former editorialist for the International Herald Tribune, Jonathan Power, said about World War Trump: “Not even Zbigniew Brzezinski or Henry Kissinger have written such a book…. Every foreign affairs student, journalist, academic, and policymaker should make reading it a priority.”

May the reader judge...